Leave it to the (debatably (yeah spell checker, it's a friggin' word!)) Leftiest state in the Union. Hawaii makes the national news, again. This time in service of Islam and tourism. Go figure.    Mazie and Tulsi enthused.

Federal judge in Hawaii halts Trump travel ban

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/15/federal-judge-in-hawaii-halts-trump-travel-ban.html

Excerpts:

President Trump's revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii just hours before it was set to take effect after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.

Trump addressed the judge’s move during a rally in Nashville, Tennessee calling it “unprecedented judicial overreach” and vowed to fight.

"We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe," Trump said. "The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear."
,,,,,
Senator Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, welcomed the ruling and said “Judge Watson exemplifies the importance of an independent judiciary.” []

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called the travel ban "bad policy" and praised Attorney General Doug Chin for stopping the order.

* * * * *

Prime example of the "leaders" not taking care of Hawaii residents.
First of all, it is not a Muslim travel ban.
How many tourists come from those countries under the temporary travel ban?
How many relatives from our Hawaii population have ties to that country?

We have a bunch of Democrat idiots.
In a zombie apoxaclypse they'd be the first to let zombies in for rehab and the last to rid them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal govt. stops funding rail. Politics. Hirono, Gabbard and Schitz are playing a stupid game.
Then we will be heavily taxed for this rail.

Could be why Obama is/was in town, to make sure Chin Chin boy and Ige towed the line and challenge anything DJT does.  Probably promised Chin a fed. judgeship in case the dems take power again.
No such thing as a coincidence with Obama.   Interesting to find out where Obama has gone since Jan 20 and see what news occurred in those places/states.

Todd Starnes' one minute (partly tongue-in-cheek) take:

"So I say send all the refugees to Honolulu. Every last one of them."

https://www.facebook.com/foxandfriends/videos/1341460405941552/

Our elected Democrats are hardly bipartisan. They are still sour after President Trumps win and that is it. Other presidents issued similar bans
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-mocks-trump-but-has-barred-immigrants-many-muslim-6-times/article/2594016
and that was an article from a year ago

Coincidence?
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/03/16/hawaii-news/judge-who-issued-travel-ban-ruling-is-obama-law-classmate/

Democrats are playing a childish game - until someone gets hurt...

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/judge-who-issued-travel-ban-ruling-obama-law-school-classmate-appointee

Obama met with him the night before.

Judge Jeanine of Fox News briefly lays out the (il)legal aspects to the Hawaii judge's decision, and suggests, like Starnes above, that all immigrants from the temporarily banned countries be sent to Hawaii (which now has virtually none).

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5362959587001/

Judge Jeanine of Fox News briefly lays out the (il)legal aspects to the Hawaii judge's decision, and suggests, like Starnes above, that all immigrants from the temporarily banned countries be sent to Hawaii (which now has virtually none).

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5362959587001/

Would like to see about 10K of these Libyans and Sudanese settle in Manoa, Makiki or Kakaako by the lux condos and later demand to be governed by Sharia Law and be a safe/.no go zone where HPD is excluded.  Create a Little Benghazi by the Manoa Marketplace and the Manoa theatre.
Judge Jeanine is a smart and tough wahine.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/boycottHawaii?src=hash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan   
Maybe they'll demand crucifixions to be legal here based on their religious beliefs.  Maybe perform it by a Starbucks.  It has always been true and will always be that civilizations have always been destroyed from within.   Look at ige and the liberals, they are the destroyers and the enemy in the gate.

Democrats are playing a childish game - until someone gets hurt...

This IS their game plan. 

When these terrorists do something they will immediately blame Trump and the Republicans for "not doing enough to curb gun violence".   The media instantly follows the game plan with 'exposés' and 'special reports' that "prove" the cause is conservatism.

80% of this state is either brainwashed beyond reprieve or brain dead and don't give a sh*t.

WE ALL LOSE

Some fallout updates:

Why Trump supporters' #BoycottHawaii movement is backfiring [Hawaii residents claim they don't want any tourists at all, much less Trump supporters; anti-Trump mainlanders say now they WILL go to Hawaii since the Trump supporters won't be there; etc.]

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/03/17/why-trump-supporters-boycotthawaii-movement-is-backfiring.html

Trump admin challenges Hawaii judge’s halt on new travel ban

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/18/trump-admin-challenges-hawaii-judge-s-halt-on-new-travel-ban.html

And, finally, this article from the Fox News "Religion" section:

Travel ban fight personal for Hawaii's 'scholarly gentleman'

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/18/travel-ban-fight-personal-for-hawaii-scholarly-gentleman.html

Excerpts:

His motivation was personal [and apparently the "personal" trumps "law"], he said. Chin said he felt as if he was invisible during his time in an overwhelmingly white suburban Seattle high school, and wanted to fight for an invisible minority in Hawaii: Muslims. [Not to mention the media bias shown by blacking out all those statements by Hawaii muslims decrying both 1. the violence of jihadists against civilians and 2. the failure of muslims to integrate into American society by still calling for Sharia law, FGM, etc. /sarc]

"It really hits home with me," he said. "It worries about me about this society and what's happening."

"It's a no-brainer why we have to object to this. I totally know how there's another segment of the population that to them it just doesn't connect," he said. "What does the Middle East have to do with Hawaii?"

The answer, he said, is Hawaii's some 5,000 Muslims are the invisible minority and Chin knows first-hand what that feels like.

[ETA at 5 PM to add one more article that thoroughly analyzes the faulty logic and legal "thinking" of Watson's decision.]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/hawaii_judges_flawed_aloha_akhbar_logic.html

Hawaii Judge's Flawed Aloha Akhbar Logic

Excerpts:

The latest indication of the  need to drain the judicial swamp comes in the form of Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling placing a hold on President Trump’s second executive order placing a temporary immigration ban on six predominantly Muslim countries. It is, as President Trump noted, a classic case of  "judicial overreach."

Judge Watson’s logic belongs in a parallel judicial universe where judges are allowed to regulate foreign policy, clearly a presidential prerogative defined in both law and the U.S. Constitution. Judge Watson cites no law and, in the case of the Constitution, says the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause which forbids favoring or disparaging a particular religion. By that logic, you could never restrict any immigration from any Muslim country for any reason. Judge Watson strays outside the four corners of the executive order and ignores explicit U.S. law to cite President Trump’s campaign statements, which are totally irrelevant. Motive, even if correctly discerned, is irrelevant here. Only the law and presidential authority should apply.
.....

As for the application by Judge Watson of the Establishment Clause to Trump’s travel ban, this is from some Alice In Wonderland law book. If travel ban violates the Establishment Clause, why hasn’t 8 U.S. Code 1182 been struck down by Judge Watson or any other liberal judge? Oklahoma Attorney Robert Barnes, interviewed on Sirius XM radio, says Judge Watson is clearly wrong in extending the Establish Clause to non-citizen foreigners.
.....
The fact is that the Constitution, which gives the president exclusive power to conduct foreign policy, does not extend infinitely to every non-citizen on this planet who may have some connection to someone here. The law clearly gives the president the legal authority to ban entry to any noncitizen who he determines may be a threat to the national security of the United States.

Judge Watson has not interpreted this or any other law. He has written law, very bad law, and has become the poster child for the need to drain the judicial swamp.

80% of this state is either brainwashed beyond reprieve or brain dead and don't give a sh*t.

Are you sure? That percentage seems a little low... 

Talked to my dad.  He said before all this boycott Hawaii stuff came out, but after this imbicillic law suit,  he called the Rick Hamada show.  He told the screener about how people from the mainland US should boycott Hawaii as a tourist destination.  At first the screener said yeah he thought that would be a great topic to talk about. But next thing they refused to put him on air!  Hahah.

I think a boycott from the mainland would cripple the tourist economy.  And maybe, just maybe, get people to get out of the ainokea mode.  What you think?

Think it's time we start flying the state flag upside down.
http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.dTj-XUjVWHITTlf-PVpU1wEsDh&w=240&h=175&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.7
http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Hdx_oWjl-znW0VDGmubfyAEsDv&w=201&h=161&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.7

I think a boycott from the mainland would cripple the tourist economy.  And maybe, just maybe, get people to get out of the ainokea mode.  What you think?

1. I don't think anything, short of cutting off all "benefits", will have any effect on the ainokea (lowest voter turnout in the United States, and highest voter percentage for Hillary Clinton in the United States) mode.

2. I suspect that the percentage of mainland travelers to Hawaii that are politically "active" and committed enough to consider a boycott is miniscule in the overall tourism numbers (even in the mainland U.S. numbers) and wouldn't even register as a blip on the screen. I recently spoke to Colion Noir on his NRA-TV show and in discussing "no issue" CCW here mentioned that if he came here he shouldn't bring a gun because 1. Hawaii has no reciprocity with any other state (so he couldn't legally carry), and 2. If he stayed for 72 hours he would have to go to the police station to register his gun. He said that he had wanted to come to Hawaii but that upon learning this he would not visit. I'm sure that some other Second Amendment rights advocates have similar beliefs and levels of commitment, but again, that number is surely miniscule. Now, if the governnor and/or tourism board got 10,000 emails and letters from boycotters, that might... no, it wouldn't change a thing... because those guys in charge... they nokea. Because they've got an agenda, and they know that even destroying the economy (more than they already have) won't oust them from power.

IMHO

Duh !
Mess with the POTUS and you think there would be no repercussions ?
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/34935353/its-not-going-to-happen-hawaiis-representatives-in-dc-vow-to-fight-trump-budget

Our  troubled Hawaiian government idiocy has even reached as far as Miami !
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article138778063.html

Aloha everyone- Thankful to be here on this Forum!
The major issue is that the Judicial Branch of Government is acting unconstitutionally- the Obama appointees in Washington, Hawaii, and Maryland are all in violation of the Law- The Executive has Legal authority over immigration Policy- the Seditious actions of these Social Justices is unquestionable. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
I am new here, but I intend to learn quickly and search for answers to  "Who, What, Where, When , & Why?" are these actions being taken and how , through the lawful application of the Constitution, We the People can effectively fight back at the Local level. Every  General election result  is determined at the County Level...  this is where the infiltration and collusion has been implemented and this is where we come in! People like you must get involved in your Precincts to identify men and women who will represent your positions and fight for your rights! Lots of work to do, but if "Delegated" properly, every issue can be addressed, our Gun rights can be restored, and our ability to resist the tyranny of our government can be strengthened! The Hawaii Republican Party is, IMHO, the best way to restore a Constitutional basis for restoration, reform, correction, and effective ACTION if we Unite! We have a President now, who is fighting for us, we must now fight for ourselves! The full force of the FEDS is circling him- he is under attack and in their "sights"- NOT GOOD!  80% of eligible Hawaiians are not participating in running their government- all we need is 20% of them to join us and "We the People" of Hawaii- the Sovereigns, the rightful "owners",  can gain control and  redirect our State, our State Legislature, and restore a Liberty based, Individually responsible citizenry. Through real Town Hall meetings, local charters, public awareness campaigns, our Constitutional Republic can be salvaged. That is what Hawaii is- one of 50 Republics, locally organized, individually empowered by our consent, under the Federal Government which has very Limited Power and Rights- the pyramid is sadly upside down- we must turn it right side up!  We owe that to our children, we owe that to ourselves, and we owe that to God, who gave us our inalienable rights! Time for Action.

Here we see the "logic" and "reasoning" behind this whole thing...

ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/aclu_lawyer_admits_trump_travel_ban_would_be_constitutional_if_hillary_issued_it.html

Excerpts:

An ACLU lawyer arguing against the Trump travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday told a federal judge that the executive order initiating the ban would have been constitutional if a President Hillary Clinton had issued it.

The lawyer cited Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric as demonstrating "animus" thus delegitimizing the order. The judge was understandably perplexed.

Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

Here we see the "logic" and "reasoning" behind this whole thing...

ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/aclu_lawyer_admits_trump_travel_ban_would_be_constitutional_if_hillary_issued_it.html

Excerpts:

An ACLU lawyer arguing against the Trump travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday told a federal judge that the executive order initiating the ban would have been constitutional if a President Hillary Clinton had issued it.

The lawyer cited Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric as demonstrating "animus" thus delegitimizing the order. The judge was understandably perplexed.

Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

They were discussing this on NPR yesterday.  Something about Trumps past statements (on the campaign trail, at public events since getting elected, etc) show a pattern of his bias against Muslims.  That even if the verbiage of the order is seemingly kosher, that they are trying to attack the intent of the order as exhibited by Trump's pattern of behavior.  Or at least something like that.  Essentially that if anyone else besides Trump, who kept silent, it would have been fine.  That is also despite the facts that both sides agree on the power that the President does have at his discretion to temporarily halt travel from specific countries.  Just can't be biased against Muslims. . .

They were discussing this on NPR yesterday.  Something about Trumps past statements (on the campaign trail, at public events since getting elected, etc) show a pattern of his bias against Muslims.  That even if the verbiage of the order is seemingly kosher, that they are trying to attack the intent of the order as exhibited by Trump's pattern of behavior.  Or at least something like that.  Essentially that if anyone else besides Trump, who kept silent, it would have been fine.  That is also despite the facts that both sides agree on the power that the President does have at his discretion to temporarily halt travel from specific countries.  Just can't be biased against Muslims. . .

So when Obama executed the exact same order against the exact same countries it wasn't "biased against Muslims", and no one (aka "progressives") challenged it in court. Trump issues the exact same order against the exact same countries and now it's "biased against Muslims"? How can the exact same law/order be two different things: legal and illegal? That's hardly how the law is supposed to work. It can't be based upon something someone once did or didn't say or do to determine the "intent". At least not in a case like this, especially where the exact same order existed previously without any problems being claimed by the same people who now say there are problems. All this does is point out the fallaciousness of the concept that the law and/or judiciary is somehow "above politics". This case, and these decisions, are purely political, and here we have the attorney against the order admitting so in court.